SPECTRE: Official Critics Review Topic (accumulative topic, NO SPOILERS, just links)

1111213141517»

Comments

  • Posts: 1,098
    Strange.......yet how in the UK.......the reviews for SP were full of praise......obviously there were some mediocre reviews, but nothing on the level of the US bashing of the film.
    Why are the nerds in the States bashing SP, is it because its too British, or too intelligent for them to understand?
  • 60% right now: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spectre_2015/

    --> "Those disgusting octopus-porn main title sequences.....Bond is still stuck in the 1950's with this kind of extreme sexism."......

    My goodness! I hope his monocle didn't fall into his drink.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 484
    mepal1 wrote: »
    Strange.......yet how in the UK.......the reviews for SP were full of praise......obviously there were some mediocre reviews, but nothing on the level of the US bashing of the film.
    Why are the nerds in the States bashing SP, is it because its too British, or too intelligent for them to understand?

    Definitely tall poppy syndrome. They praised SF and now they're going to knock SP down. He's a British hero too so do MI and Bourne get easier rides?

    Again, the most common thing about the US reviews are Bond bashing rather than the SP film itself. That's why they have no credence in our discussion of the film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    mepal1 wrote: »
    Strange.......yet how in the UK.......the reviews for SP were full of praise......obviously there were some mediocre reviews, but nothing on the level of the US bashing of the film.
    Why are the nerds in the States bashing SP, is it because its too British, or too intelligent for them to understand?

    No, it's not that. They just like to knock down something which had oversize success which took them by surprise in the past. Bond is bigger than them. It's oversize and it's global. It's forever too. Bulletproof. They got caught up in the hysteria last time, and they can't forgive themselves for it. They resent it. How dare he, that cheeky English bugger.

    Having said that, SP has played into their hands it seems, with all the apparent throwbacks to Bonds of yore, and DC/Smith/Sonyleaks did not help.

    That in a nutshell is likely the reason.

    Unless the film is actually shyte? That's what I'm really curious to find out tomorrow. Can't wait.
  • Posts: 1,098
    bondjames wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    Strange.......yet how in the UK.......the reviews for SP were full of praise......obviously there were some mediocre reviews, but nothing on the level of the US bashing of the film.
    Why are the nerds in the States bashing SP, is it because its too British, or too intelligent for them to understand?

    No, it's not that. They just like to knock down something which had oversize success which took them by surprise in the past. Bond is bigger than them. It's oversize and it's global. They got caught up in the hysteria last time, and they can't forgive themselves for it. They resent it. How dare he, that cheeky English bugger.

    Having said that, SP has played into their hands it seems, with all the apparent throwbacks to Bonds of yore, and DC/Smith/Sonyleaks did not help.

    That in a nutshell is likely the reason.

    Unless the film is actually shyte? That's what I'm really curious to find out tomorrow. Can't wait.

    Bond 24 maybe a few things.......and i've seen it twice......but one thing it isn't is shite!........Go and enjoy. :)
  • Posts: 484
    bondjames wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    Strange.......yet how in the UK.......the reviews for SP were full of praise......obviously there were some mediocre reviews, but nothing on the level of the US bashing of the film.
    Why are the nerds in the States bashing SP, is it because its too British, or too intelligent for them to understand?

    No, it's not that. They just like to knock down something which had oversize success which took them by surprise in the past. Bond is bigger than them. It's oversize and it's global. It's forever too. Bulletproof. They got caught up in the hysteria last time, and they can't forgive themselves for it. They resent it. How dare he, that cheeky English bugger.

    Having said that, SP has played into their hands it seems, with all the apparent throwbacks to Bonds of yore, and DC/Smith/Sonyleaks did not help.

    That in a nutshell is likely the reason.

    Unless the film is actually shyte? That's what I'm really curious to find out tomorrow. Can't wait.

    There have certainly been some unfortunate external factors around this film which has given people and angle in their reviews to firmly put the boot it.

    I'd like to think you will find enough thinks to enjoy in SPECTRE.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited November 2015 Posts: 4,116
    mepal1 wrote: »
    Strange.......yet how in the UK.......the reviews for SP were full of praise......obviously there were some mediocre reviews, but nothing on the level of the US bashing of the film.
    Why are the nerds in the States bashing SP, is it because its too British, or too intelligent for them to understand?

    Possibly many factors including that they maybe less forgiving of the films faults.

    An intelligent critic is usually an oxymoron unless you happen to agree with the critic ...then both of you are highly intelligent or utter morons.

    Either way unless your referring strictly to the critics I really don't appreciate your comment.



  • Posts: 1,068
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    60% right now: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spectre_2015/

    --> "Those disgusting octopus-porn main title sequences.....Bond is still stuck in the 1950's with this kind of extreme sexism."......

    My goodness! I hope his monocle didn't fall into his drink.

    best =)) today
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    mepal1 wrote: »
    Strange.......yet how in the UK.......the reviews for SP were full of praise......obviously there were some mediocre reviews, but nothing on the level of the US bashing of the film.
    Why are the nerds in the States bashing SP, is it because its too British, or too intelligent for them to understand?

    Such people are too in love with the sound of their own voices to see the truth let alone speak it.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Critics are like trolls, they state their own opinions as absolute Fact ! :))
  • They're just opinions, if you take them in context, on RT 58 people weren't that impressed, in the UK alone last week over 4 million have seen the film, if you say 63% as RT liked it, then you are looking at over 2.5 Million in the UK liked it, if this were a poll then SP would have a 26% majorty which any government would take every day of the week & twice on Sunday.
  • MyNameIsMyBondRnMyNameIsMyBondRn WhereYouLeastExpectMeToBe
    Posts: 221
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    60% right now: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spectre_2015/

    --> "Those disgusting octopus-porn main title sequences.....Bond is still stuck in the 1950's with this kind of extreme sexism."......

    My goodness! I hope his monocle didn't fall into his drink.

    -Well, SomeHow It did..!

  • Posts: 12,280
    I hope the people over there have more sense than to listen to the critics?
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    I hope the people over there have more sense than to listen to the critics?

    Me too.
  • Are we essentially looking at a RT of like 80-84% for the entire Craig-era? Because I'd easily take that.
  • Almost, well assuming that 63% for Spectre is final, DC's average critical score on RT is 79.

    Brosnan's is 60.7.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 1,083
    Craig is rock solid as far as legacy/ratings go. RT just ranked the Bond films from worst rated to best and CR and SF were 1 and 2. Not bad for one actor to have the two best according to them.

    On the film itself, though, SP is freaking amazing. So fun, so thrilling, so great. It has flaws, sure, with some awkward moments here and there and it was a bit bloated; but damn it all I enjoyed every second. I think the problem with some of the critics is that there hasn't really been a Bond film like this for 16 years with TWINE. Even DAD went away from the formula people were used to at the time and hell, Craig's run has been anything but formula for the first three films. Thus, these young critics don't have the first clue that SP is how it's always been as far as the familiar elements involved. If someone is under 30 and not a true Bond fan, they simply won't get this movie at all. It's ironic how Craig's tenure is part of the problem. They stripped it all down, rebooted a fresh new take, and have now gone back to the way things were.

    I think it's great and if Craig does walk away (which I'm convinced he won't), then at least he got a film like this in his run. That's a complete era for him, IMO. He's now done it all. Anything else will be gravy.
  • Posts: 484
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    I think it's great and if Craig does walk away (which I'm convinced he won't), then at least he got a film like this in his run. That's a complete era for him, IMO. He's now done it all. Anything else will be gravy.

    Yep, it's fan service in a way. Even after CR some speculated when we'd get a GF or TSWLM style film with Craig. Well we've got that now and if the box office performance is good enough to convince Craig to return I'm sure it'll be on his terms and the next film may be about what he wants to explore with Bond.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 2,014
    5 Bond movies have an adjusted RT rating above 100%. Now that's what I call a successful franchise :)

    @RC7, do you think after years of suffering with Skyfall fans telling us how silly our beloved old movies were, we'll now have instead Spectre fans re-discovering the hidden gems within Octopussy ? :)
  • Posts: 1,083
    Cowley wrote: »
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    I think it's great and if Craig does walk away (which I'm convinced he won't), then at least he got a film like this in his run. That's a complete era for him, IMO. He's now done it all. Anything else will be gravy.

    Yep, it's fan service in a way. Even after CR some speculated when we'd get a GF or TSWLM style film with Craig. Well we've got that now and if the box office performance is good enough to convince Craig to return I'm sure it'll be on his terms and the next film may be about what he wants to explore with Bond.

    Exactly. That's what is so great (among other things) about this franchise. There's nearly infinite variety involved. Some entries are dark and grim, serious spy thrillers; while others are entertaining, globe-trotting romps. That's awesome. I'm so glad Craig got his lighter, rompier adventure, and no matter what happens next he's had it. I'm so intrigued what direction they go in. I have a feeling they might tone it down, just a bit, and settle back to earth. Either way, I'm there asap. Man, I can't wait to see SP again!
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,119
    Finally, here is my review for "SPECTRE". Although it's more of a thesis :-P. Anyway, enjoy. I am curious what you think of it:
    REVIEW “SPECTRE”: MICKEY MOUSE IS BACK WITH A BANG

    Earlier this year reviewers were positive about Matthew Vaughn’s new comic book adaptation vs. spy spoof “Kingsman: The Secret Service”. Some critics applauded the more comedic approach of the film. It was a return to Roger Moore-esque suaveness and cheesy, though violent, comedy. It was an element that was greatly missed in the recent Bond films with Daniel Craig. Then “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation” premiered and it got hailed as the best spy-action film of the year. Critics uttered sentences like "Tom Cruise remains the action star without equal”, thus no critics mentioned Cruise’s age of 53, that he was doing his 5th “M:I”-film already (he signed up for a 6th), and what will happen to the franchise when he leaves. Review by Gustav_Graves (Gert)


    It’s a pretty damn old thing
    With Bond it’s an entirely different thing. It’s a 53-year old franchise which formula got shaken and stirred during a whopping portfolio of 24 films, of which “SPECTRE” is the 24th. But like Bond’s past haunting him more than ever in this new adventure, the actual franchise is equally haunted by all its previous films and many other newer franchises who borrow from it. No matter how successful and gracefully old the franchise is, it’s therefore prone to much more criticism and comparisons. Compared to relatively new franchises like “Mission: Impossible”, “The Dark Knight” and “The Fast And The Furious”, the “James Bond”-franchise’s reference point around which criticism –both positive and negative-- is build, is its own past. It’s logical if you are 53 years old, though at times not entirely fair. For a “Mission: Impossible”-film it’s usually a compliment to be compared with a Bond film, but ‘godfather[/]’ Bond doesn’t have that privilege. Critics will never say “This actually is a better Marvel-film!”. It always needs to battle itself, in good and bad times.

    Actor Ben Whishaw commented during the Royal World Premiere in London: “You know what you're going to get, but you know it's also going to be slightly different every time”. And that’s again the case with “SPECTRE”. Sadly, because of the age of the franchise many people have forgotten that adage, and don’t ask themselves anymore what to expect from a new Bond film. Obviously, you have to be prepared for a familiar and slightly formulaic film, of which all ingredients are being blended differently. That was the case with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall”. So when people call “SPECTRE” an uninspired, sapid copy of its own past, they either hail –though not really watch-- the oldest Bond films, or they tend to forget the implications of the franchise’s age of 53 (in comparison, “Mission: Impossible” is now 20 years old).

    The build-up to “SPECTRE”
    In any case, after the most violent shape-up of the Bond-franchise with the previous three Bond films, “Casino Royale”, “Quantum Of Solace” and “Skyfall”, Sam Mendes wisely settles the franchise down a bit with “SPECTRE”. During the final scenes of “Skyfall” we got prepared for that. Bond visits the new, more scaled down MI6-offices at Whitehall. He enters Miss Moneypenny’s small office, looks down on her desk and smiles with Connery-esque wit: “I’m looking forward to our time together Miss Moneypenny?!”. He then encounters Gareth Mallory, the new ‘M’, in an office that resembles Bernard Lee’s wooden panelled, dusty post-WW II-designed mission room.
    csl50cX.jpg

    So is “SPECTRE” a blatant copy of its past? Again, it depends how you look at it. I’d go with a “No”. After “SPECTRE” Her Majesty’s Loyal Terrier has now been completely re-introduced to us. With slow nuance and credibility, with joyous and at times original re-imagined elements from the franchise’s past and with a better sense of continuity. All of which happened over a course of 4 films (which started in 2006, two years before Marvel decided to revel with their universe). Continuity though, has never been a very important element to the Bond franchise. Due to the big financial risks accompanied with the production of a film that wasn’t even a franchise yet, due to the production complexity of bringing Bond to the big screen with a few of Fleming’s earlier novels (“Moonraker”, “Live And Let Die”) and due to several of Fleming’s novels not being fully owned by EON Productions (the very first novel “Casino Royale” & aspects/characters from “Thunderball”), continuity and chronology were soon thrown away for the sake of giving us a Bond film in the first place. So back in 1962 (“Doctor No”) Sean Connery was already the fully rounded agent 007.

    Not with Daniel Craig. We saw Bond earning his 00-licence in (“Casino Royale”), falling in love with a complex girl (“Casino Royale”), battling his own emotions of revenge and anger (“Quantum Of Solace”), and then facing the importance of espionage by witnessing the fall and re-birth of MI6 (“Skyfall”). You almost wánt James Bond to face a little bit less death and destruction, no? (“Skyfall”, “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” and “Casino Royale” are unique phenomena that are heavy on emotions, but wouldn’t it become a bit uninspiring and joyless to kill off a beloved character at the very end of every Bond film?).

    The organisation is back
    With “SPECTRE” all elements of the Bond-cocktail are in place now. Well, not quite. One important element from Ian Fleming’s novels had to be properly re-introduced: Bond’s antagonist S.P.E.C.T.R.E. (Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge & Extortion). While James Bond 007 has got his emotions in check now, makes us laugh a bit more, and is now more focused on his mission –rogue or not rogue-, people might have noticed the absence of a larger threat, a so called anti-MI6. So the return of Fleming’s mysterious crime syndicate S.P.E.C.T.R.E. is uttermost welcome. And in this particular film S.P.E.C.T.R.E and its tentacles are an emotional tour-de-force. It is most definitely the haunting ghost of both agent 007 and MI6. But it’s more than that.

    Because for all the good work of Protector Bond, we still live in an era of real-life hostility, intense geopolitical problems and villainous dictators. Not to mention the facilitators of big conflicts, like the crisis in Eastern-Ukraine or the escalating immigrant-crisis in Europe. Ian Fleming knew how to translate such events in a slightly larger-than-life context. And so does Sam Mendes. Hence the return of a slightly more realistic Bilderberg-inspired S.P.E.C.T.R.E. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group) that perfectly channels this reality (off course within a larger-than-life context). And since I am reviewing a film here and not a real-life conflict, “SPECTRE” is particularly an exciting spectacle for those who like to see more death and destruction from Bond’s biggest antagonist. The S.P.E.C.T.R.E.-meeting in Rome is therefore one of the highlights of the film, one that includes a particularly horrifying death, coldly witnessed by Oberhauser. And no, it isn’t a cheesy electrocution, or a moment of shark feeding.
    World_Gov_Chart_left.gif

    Talking about Oberhauser…..Christoph Waltz portrays a solid Bond villain. Obviously he isn’t Silva, but that poor guy was living in total rage, whereas Oberhauser seems to have his emotions better in check within his psychotic mindset. Oberhauser isn’t running around like Silva and isn’t gunning down people with core beliefs of that of an Islamic State terrorist. He is less motivated by his past and more motivated by his own psyche. Which makes him credible especially during a torture scene. It gives you the best introduction to an arch nemesis that was absent for such a long time. And this arch nemesis will give you dentist fever, trust me.

    More credible humour?
    “SPECTRE” is a good 4th part of this full-blooded Bond-quadrilogy. It’s Craig’s “Thunderball” or “The Spy Who Loved Me”, slightly more stripped down from unnecessary emotions and character’s complexities, and more upbeat with credible humour (an emotion too…) and larger action sequences as part of the plot. Craig himself though is never copying Sir Moore or Sir Connery. Yes, Bond’s dry wit is back and Daniel Craig utters a few witty one-liners, but they all sound a bit more “street”. Most of the humour works so well, because it’s part of the circumstances/events. When for instance Bond falls on a sofa during the pre-credits sequence, he’s not uttering an appallingly written Brosnan-one-liner. No, instead the audiences can observe a 007 who probably himself thinks “Hell, why couldn’t this be a clean kill”. Same thing occurs with some of the Mickey Mouse-references. Only Daniel Craig can belittle himself with such gusto by saying he’s the one and only Disney character (Did you caught the Topolino/Mickey Mouse references? I did count three). "SPECTRE" definitely is the funniest film of the quadrilogy.

    Action-heavy, in a good way
    Thanks in particular to editor Lee Smith (“The Dark Knight”), a good writing team and a more frivolous and improvising acting style from Daniel Craig, the action sequences top a few of the previous, more recent Bond stunts, and even those from competing 007-inspired spy-franchises. They don’t feel unrelated to the plot. A tense fight sequence between 007 and Monsieur Hinx, without music but with wonderful sound-editing from Oscar-winner Per Halberg (("Skyfall"), feels almost as gripping as the torture scene in "Casino Royale". And the rather long car chase among the banks of the river Tiber in Rome never feels long, due to some smart editing of some light-hearted phone conversation between Bond and Moneypenny. Still, for a 25th Bond film there are so many types of stunts available from the stuntman’s big hat that haven’t been used before in a Bond film. Free-running was something new in “Casino Royale”, and something as original as that “SPECTRE” won’t offer you.

    Some but’s
    “SPECTRE” therefore isn’t a perfect film. Some other examples are the London-based sequences. They felt a bit too contrived at times. And that’s partially because Sam Mendes tried a bit too hard to focus on a 2nd storyline in which the entire MI6-staff played a role. One should not try forcefully to give great actors more screen time. I therefore think it’s inevitable that in the future ‘M’, ‘Q’, Moneypenny and Tanner shine a bit more from behind a desk.

    Moreover, the finale in London was exciting, though not entirely fulfilling. After the blow-up of Oberhauser’s lair, the CNS-program could have been destroyed entirely. By doing so, the personal story between Oberhauser and Bond could have felt a bit more ‘compact’, thus more effective. A dinner table sequence would have been good here, though I did think the ‘fun house’ sequence inside the old MI6-building (A very Fleming-esque sequence nonetheless) worked well enough. But London? We know you exist by now ok?

    Verdict
    Despite this and some other ‘minor caveats’, “SPECTRE” still holds as a ‘TOP 10 Best Bond Entry’ in the EON-led franchise. The film isn’t an ‘état fenomenale’ like its predecessors (“Casino Royale”, “Goldfinger”, “Skyfall”, “The Spy Who Loved Me” and “From Russia With Love”). But who knows, perhaps that can happen in the foreseeable future (“On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”?). Former “Goldfinger” director Guy Hamilton once quoted this: "We're going to take you to wonderful places, we're going to show you beautiful girls, we're gonna have some suspense, we're gonna have some laughs....but...let's enjoyy!" And that’s what I did immensely with possibly the best spy-themed action thriller of 2015.

    My rating: ■ ■ ■ ■ □
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Snake on a plane of being
    Posts: 42,437
    That was a pretty good review, @Gustav_Graves.
  • Posts: 266
    good review, @Gustav_Graves
Sign In or Register to comment.